Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 21STCV30455 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV30455, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30455 Hearing Date: January 5, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Jamie Cornejo’s motion to change venue is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

“Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made.” (Brown v. Superior Court of Alameda County (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482.) Plaintiff’s choice of venue is presumptively correct, and Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that venue is not proper there. (Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 309, 313-14.)

Where a complaint alleges injury to a person or personal property, venue is proper where some or all of the defendants reside. (Code Civ. Proc. § 395.) Where a complaint alleges personal injury “from wrongful act or negligence . . . the county where the injury occurs . . . shall be a proper county for the trial of the action.” (Cacciaguidi v. Superior Court (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 181, 184-185.)

A party can move to transfer venue from a proper county to another county when the party can prove that such change of venue will promote convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. (CCP § 397(c); Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607.) The moving party must file affidavits or declarations that show (1) the names of each witness expected to testify for both parties, (2) the substance of their expected testimony, (3) whether the witness has been deposed or has given a statement, (4) the reasons why it would be inconvenient for the witnesses to appear, and (5) the reasons why the ends of justice would be promoted by a transfer to a different county. (Juneau v. Juneau (1941) 45 Cal. App. 2d 14, 15-16.)

The burden is on the moving party to produce admissible evidence showing both convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be met. (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607.)

In a motion brought under section 397, subdivision 3, ‘the burden [of proof] rests on the party moving for transfer to establish grounds for change of venue, on the theory the plaintiff lays the venue and it is presumptively correct.’ [Citation.] ‘[I]t is not only necessary that convenience of witnesses be served, but it is equally essential that the ends of justice be promoted.’ [Citation.]

While a motion made under this section is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, that discretion is not unfettered. For instance, except under limited circumstances, the court may not consider the convenience of the parties or of their employees in passing upon the motion. (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 612, 328 P.2d 953 [convenience of parties not to be considered]; International Investment Co. v. Chagnon (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 439, 446, 346 P.2d 209 [convenience of a party’s employees not to be considered].)

(Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 396, 401.)

Declarations made in support of the motion for change of venue, on the grounds that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted, must show (1) the name of each witness, (2) the expected testimony of each witness, and (3) facts showing why the attendance of said witnesses at trial will be inconvenient and why the ends of justice would be served by a transfer. (Stute v. Burinda (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d Supp. 11, 17.)

Discussion

Defendant Cornejo moves to transfer venue to Orange County. He argues that Los Angeles County is an improper venue because the collision took place in Santa Ana, Orange County. (Cornejo Decl., ¶ 4.) In addition, Defendant lives in Orange County, California. (Id., ¶ 3.) Moreover, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation, with its principal place of business located at 1515 3rd Street, San Francisco, CA 94158-2211, San Francisco County. Defendants Raiser, LLC, Raiser-CA, LLC, Raiser-DC, LLC, and Raiser-PA, LLC, subsidiaries of Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. have their principal place of business located at 1515 3rd Street, San Francisco, CA 94158-2211, San Francisco County. (Costello Decl., ¶ 6.)

As such, because Defendant Cornejo resides in Orange County, no other Defendant resides in Los Angeles County, and Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries occurred in Orange County, Defendant’s motion to change venue to Orange County is granted.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to change venue is GRANTED.

Venue is not proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395. Proper venue lies in Orange County.

Matter is ordered transferred to said county upon payment of the transfer fee in the sum of $50.00 payable to the Los Angeles Superior Court and the submission of a separate check for the filing fee in the sum of $435.00 payable to Orange Superior Court, within 30 days by Plaintiffs in the Clerk's Office at the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.